Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: How’s the Beretta 1951?

  1. #31
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Cincitucky

    I’m fully aware that no one gives a rat’s ass, but...

    This old beater shoots pretty good.

    Name:  71FC760E-86FD-447D-98BB-A4A2C066ABAA.jpg
Views: 393
Size:  29.5 KB

    @ 10 yards. The shots above the 10 ring are from my DAK P239 in .357 sig, which I was casually aiming in that general area after I ran out of 9mm. Hooray for oddball calibers in ammo droughts.

    I had no issues in 58 rounds—which was about half my remaining 9mm. I took 6 head shots at 25 yards. 3 hit the head. It’s a solid little blaster, overall and a cool piece of Beretta history.

    I kinda wish you could get a 92 that’s closer to this form factor. Or a more modernized DA/SA 1951–whatever you wanna call it. I agree the grip feels a little too deep front to back, but it didn’t bother me shooting. It cycled smoothly and recoiled softly. It reminds me a little bit of the Smith 39-2 I had for a while. Man that gun shot great and felt great. Unfortunately it just wasn’t 100% reliable. Seems like this (probably) is.

  2. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SE Michigan

    Beretta Compact, type M

    Beretta has made several Compact versions of the 92, one of them with a single column magazine. They don't make it any more, and they never made many of them. Look for the Type M.

  3. #33
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Cincitucky
    I'd love to have a type M... just because. Had a regular double stack compact F 92 for years. Still, the 1951 feels smaller all around than any 92 I've handled--and not just bc it's a single stack. The fact that it fits in a formed Kahr holster surprised me. I wonder why they scaled it up so much when they designed the 92. It's probably just tougher, overall, for a service pistol. But for the purposes of most civilians, I think the size of the 1951 probably makes more sense... notwithstanding its other shortcomings in terms of dated ergos, tiny sights (but I do shoot accurately with tiny sights), SAO, etc.

  4. #34
    Site Supporter LtDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central AZ

    Did someone say Type M?

    Mine shoots ok:

    Name:  IMG_8032.jpg
Views: 273
Size:  45.1 KB
    The first indication a bad guy should have that I'm dangerous is when his
    disembodied soul is looking down at his own corpse wondering what happened.

  5. #35
    Member JonInWA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Auburn, WA
    I had a Type M for several years. And I actually had sufficient back-up magazines for it...

    Pros: Beautifully made gun; mine was DA/SA, with OEM Trijicon night sights. The only thing I switched out was the grips, for a set of Farrar rubber grips. Mine shot quite nicely and accurately; I wasn't experimenting with springs then, so the DA/SA transition was pretty pronnounced. I had Kramer make up a IWB #3 for it for carry.

    Cons: Even with the OEM grips replaced with the Farrar grips, the receiver circumfrence was pretty thick-as in not much thinner than the larger 92s, to the point that it really didn't make much sense when comared to a 92 Centurion or Compact. The biggest minus were the sharp tangs at the upsweep of the backstrap; thse really dug into my side. Apparently I'm not the only one who expereinced this, as Ayoob specifically comments on it in his book, "The Gun Digest Book Of Beretta Pistols."

    Magazines were, and are, difficult to find and pricey. Beretta apparently never reeally produced that many of these guns, and magazine production seems to be proportional to production-and similarly discontinued...

    At the end of the day, I felt I was better served in the Type M's niche by my SIG P225 and Walther P5.

    Best, Jon

  6. #36
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Cincitucky
    Quote Originally Posted by LtDave View Post
    Mine shoots ok:

    Name:  IMG_8032.jpg
Views: 273
Size:  45.1 KB
    You’re a little left there... 😉


    Just kidding. Really Impressive group at 20 yards.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •